Document of Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist): Either Prachanda Or Mohan Baidya (Kiran) Means More Revisionism! CPN-Maoist Is The Flip-side of UCPN (M): Both Giving Up The Struggle And Opposing People’s War Strategy!

CPN-Maoist Is The Flip-side of UCPN (M): Both Giving Up The Struggle And Opposing People’s War Strategy!

Central Committee

Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan

(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist)

February 15, 2013

Prepared for the Internet by People’s War Editorial Board

People’s war until communism!

Either Prachanda Or Mohan Baidya (Kiran) Means More Revisionism!

CPN-Maoist Is The Flip-side of UCPN (M): Both Giving Up The Struggle And Opposing People’s War Strategy!

Bringing forth the theory of fusion of two different kinds of strategies which was held by CPN (M) in its second national conference in 2001 was the beginning for a deeply deviationist line. However, formally this party betrayed the revolution from 2005-2006 on, but, one should consider the theoretical and ideological roots for this. The so called theory of two different kinds of strategies which is also called “the model of fusion”, according to Prachanda is legitimate due to:

““The rapid development of science and technology, especially in the area of electronic field has brought about completely new model in regard to forwarding revolution in each country and in the world in the form of fusion of the strategies of protracted people’s war and general armed insurrection based on the above analysis.”

In such a manner, revisionism rejected the universality of PPW, and denied its strategic sufficiency.

“Reviving” the model of armed insurrection was not the point of interest for Nepali revisionists. It was a mask for overthrowing the strategy of PPW. They found no “better” means rather than escaping towards reviving an insurrectionist myth for discarding strategy of People’s war.

“Model of fusion” was not more than eclecticism. As MLM forces uphold, today, in all over the world, it is only the PPW which is the international strategy of proletariat. Denying PPW equals to denying and discarding Maoism. Discarding Maoism equals to discarding communism and future of the world. So, revisionism, by creating such an elusive “model”, indeed was attempting to discard Maoism. It seemed to announce a “Post-Maoist” contribution, but indeed, it was a deviationist line, which was neither capable of synthesizing the present situation nor able of formulating any new contributions. For genuine Communists, in our time, it is only MLM which is the command of world proletarian revolution. Avakianism which is a Post-Maoist deviationist line, also has not been able to develop any proletarian conception. Because, to deny Maoism, means to deny communism. It was what renegades Avakian and Prachanda have since done!

UCPN(M) which upheld “model of fusion”, finally gave up to imperialism, expansionism and reaction. The traitor leaders of this party, finally came to “stagization” of the “bourgeois democratic revolution”, and finally even discarded the slogan of New Democratic Revolution!

The so called “Red Fraction” within the UCPN(M) led by Mohan Baidya (Kiran) finally split from the party in 2012 and built a “New Party” under title of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

From January 16 to 18 this year (2013) the so called formally “Seventh Congress” of the newly formed party was held.

This congress, in its turn served the bourgeoisie and adopt urban “people’s revolt” as party line.

While still a number of revolutionaries in rank-and file of this party argued for PPW and a re-start of people’s war in Nepal, but the revisionist leadership of this party, under leadership of revisionist “Kiran” rejected people’s war. They also rejected revival of People’s Guerrilla Liberation Army, and said that they are not willing to either revive the liberation army or the people’s government!

Under such a circumstance, by adopting urban “ people’s revolt” instead of people’s war, the “newly formed” party proved that: It is no more than an appendage of Nepalese revisionism! It is a flip-side of Prachandist revisionism, which had already, in favor of “model of fusion” had systematically rejected people’s war.

“People’s revolt” as an urban combat weapon, by holding demonstrations and protests in cities, sides along shadows of revisionist revival of myth of insurrectionist model within the frame work of model of fusion.

So, for Kiran-co as it was and still is for Prachanda-co, everything is possible and capable to be adopted except the strategy of People’s war!

This is why we call them both revisionists. Indeed, Nepalis revisionism, as already renegade Prachanda had argued for, is prevailing in the scene by multi-party system of bourgeois parties falsely naming themselves as proletarian ones!

Kiran-co and their newly formed party, is a necessity for “Maoist” bourgeoisie which is fighting for a multi-party system in twenty first century!

Today, the centrist current is defending CPN(M). Kiran in an interview wishes for rehabilitation and reconstruction of Revolutionary Internationalist Movement within its former members. “naturally” kiran demands the ICM not allow Prachandists in RIM. Centrists also reject Prachandism. But, for genuine Maoists, reformation of RIM in basis of former and present renegates and revisionist parties, does not serve for ICM. Communist party of Ecuador (Reconstruction Committee) which has argued for reformation of RIM based in former members of it, while taking stand “In favor of PCP and MPP” has spread confusions among international Maoism. It seems this party, “unconsciously” is siding along centrist parties like Communist (Maoist) Party of Italy.

For genuine Maoists, RIM can not be reformed in basis of revisionist and anti-Maoist elements. The December 26th, Joint Statement of Maoist Organizations and Parties, correctly demands for a new international Maoist Center. Today, RIM is a dead corpus, and we can not revive it with reformist and centrist miracles.

Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist,) based in its joint statement of January 2013 with CPMLM France and CPMLM Bangladesh, calls all Maoist organizations for a new International Maoist Center, a center without Centerism and neo-revisionism. For this purpose, it is necessary to take position against twins’ revisionism of Nepal, as well as against Post-Maoism of Avakianites.

It is the correct time to reject Kiran-Prachanda betrayal, and it is the time to take stand, otherwise, centrists will make their own “international” and will fasten the process of consolidation of revisionism internationally.